Login

IN-Action Archived Past Issues



Volume 140

AUGUST 2018

Many checks but how many occurrences?

The finance manager at First United Methodist Church started embezzling in 2008 but the crime wasn't discovered until December 2012. Philadelphia Indemnity was notified in January that a total of $200,000 had been taken. The church requested coverage under the 2011 and the 2012 policy terms for a total of $100,000 but Philadelphia offered only $50,000.

Click here to see how much the church received.

 

Limiting the payout

Employee theft once started often seems to become habitual. A small amount is taken and then, when the employee is not caught or stopped, an additional amount is taken. The taking continues until the employee is caught or leaves the company. The insurance company understands this and therefore attempts to limit its loss through conditions and definitions.

Click here to read the PF&M analysis of some of the limiting conditions and definitions within the crime coverage forms.

 

Some small but significant changes

The 11 15 edition of the crime forms was remarkable in the limited number of changes introduced. However, to certain entities, these changes could be very important.

Click here to review a discussion of the changes made.

Click here to read the PF&M analysis of the changed portions of the coverage.

 

Asking about employee dishonesty exposures

Employee dishonesty losses can devastate a business because often a highly trusted person in the organization is the embezzler. Adequate coverage limits can help your client recover and to move forward. The first step is talking about the real possibility of a loss.

Click here for a letter you could send to set up the conversation.